High CourtsSingle Bench

Devendra Singh Faujdar vs Arushi Ajay Malik, District Collector And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 1 November 2019 · Citation: (2019) 11 RAJ CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Contempt Petition No. 1120 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 318 words

The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 14.03.2019.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner for purchase of arm (weapon) was not decided by the District Collector

within four weeks, as directed by this Court.

Counsel submitted that the contemnor was served with a notice of contempt and after same action being taken, the application of the petitioner has

been dismissed on 19.09.2019.

This Court finds that on 20.09.2019, the Coordinate Bench was not satisfied with the reasons for delay in compliance of the Court’s order and as

such the contemnor-District Collector was required to file an affidavit explaining reasons for delay in compliance of the Court’s order.

This Court further finds that on 01.10.2019, this Court observed that the affidavit filed, was containing specious reasonings for delay in compliance of

the Court’s order and as such the District Collector was directed to remain present before this Court on 04.10.2019.

Counsel for the respondent-contemnor Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG submitted that contemnor has tendered unconditional apology before this

Court and further she has also tried to explain the delay which led to passing of the order on 19.09.2019.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire endeavour of the respondent-contemnor, was not to comply with the order and the reasons given for

not passing the order in time bound manner should not be accepted by this Court.

This Court finds that the contemnor who is present in the Court, has tendered unconditional apology and has further assured this Court that in future

compliance of the order passed by the Court will be made, without any delay. This Court considering the unconditional apology discharges the notices

issued to the respondent-contemnor.

Counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the order dated 19.09.2019, if so advised.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.